4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Braşov.
5.  On 4 September 1991 the applicant brought an action against nine persons, seeking the division of property that was jointly owned and was registered in the Land Register under no. 954 Moeciu de Jos (“CF 954”). He requested to have a house made of wood and a stable allocated to him.
6.  On 16 February 1993 the Braşov Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”) dismissed the action. The court could not reach a conclusion because the expert report had mentioned that the property registered under CF 954 was linked up with another property registered under CF 417, belonging to other owners and with no clear boundaries, and the parties had refused to have another expert report produced.
7.  On 15 June 1993 the Braşov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) allowed an appeal by the applicant, quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and sent the case back for a fresh examination. It considered that the applicant should also bring the civil action against the owners of the property registered under CF 417.
8.  Of the fourteen hearings held between 8 September 1993 and 20 September 1995, one was adjourned at the applicant’s request as his lawyer was absent.
9.  On 15 July 1993 a certain M.A. brought proceedings against the applicant for recovery of possession of the property registered under CF 417. M.A.’s action was joined to the proceedings brought by the applicant.
In 1995 the applicant brought an action against M.A. to evict her from the house, the stable and other outbuildings. This action was also joined to the proceedings brought by the applicant in 1991.
10.  After the retrial, on 25 October 1995 the Regional Court, taking into account the three expert reports, upheld the applicant’s action, severed the joint tenancy in respect of the properties registered under CF 954 and CF 417, allocated him the house registered under CF 954 and ordered the eviction of M.A. It also dismissed M.A.’s action for recovery of possession.
11.  On 15 May 1996 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal by M.A.
12.  M.A. subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law. Of the sixteen hearings held between 12 September 1996 and 3 March 1998, none was adjourned as a result of requests by the applicant.
13.  On 10 March 1998 the Braşov Court of Appeal by a final decision upheld the subsequent appeal by M.A. and quashed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, sending the case back for a fresh examination as regards the division of the property registered under CF 954, rejected the applicant’s request for division of the property registered under CF 417 and ordered him to leave that property in the possession of M.A. It found that the lower court had not divided the property under CF 954 into shares.
14.  During the fresh proceedings, of the fifty hearings held between 12 June 1998 and 12 November 2004 six were adjourned at the applicant’s request, including between 4 October 2002 and 22 May 2003, when he requested an adjournment pending an appeal he had lodged against an interlocutory decision. Between 8 January and 26 February 1999 and between 17 September 1999 and 1 September 2000 the proceedings were stayed on account of the unjustified absence of the parties.
During the hearings between 4 May and 29 June 2001 the court reconstructed the file, following its disappearance.
15.  On 10 August 2000 the bailiff proceeded, on the basis of the final decision of 10 March 1998, to put M.A. in possession of the house. As the applicant refused to participate in this activity, the bailiff made a valuation of his possessions. The bailiff put a seal on some of the rooms and entrusted some of the applicant’s possessions to the keeping of G.I., who was acting as a proxy for him. The bailiff also mentioned that the possessions would be put at the applicant’s disposal, at his request.
16.  On 29 March 2002 the Court of First Instance by an interlocutory decision concluded from the expert reports that there was actually only one house, registered under CF 417, and not two houses. Therefore the court rejected the applicant’s request to include the house in the property to be divided.
On 17 February 2003 the Regional Court upheld an appeal by the applicant against the interlocutory decision and included the house, the stable and the appurtenant land of 1260 sq.m. in the property to be divided.
17.  On 6 August 2003 the Court of First Instance, by an interlocutory decision, rejected a request by the applicant to challenge a judge (recuzare) who had participated in the hearing of 29 March 2002 and fined the applicant, finding that he had acted in bad faith in submitting the request one year and four months after the relevant date.
18.  On 19 November 2004 the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s action. The court found itself unable to proceed with the division of the property registered under CF 954 owing to the fact that, as had been shown in an expert report, the land making up that property could not be identified and therefore evaluated. It also mentioned that the applicant had been unwilling to produce another expert report that was more specific and technical regarding the conclusions.
19.  On 1 June 2005 the Regional Court by a final decision upheld an appeal by the applicant, quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and sent the case back for a fresh examination. It considered that, under Article 129 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court of First Instance should have informed the parties that it was necessary to supplement the civil action with regard to the rectification in the Land Register, on account of discrepancies between the Register and the de facto situation, to draw the borderline between the properties registered under CF 954 and CF 417 and to extend the civil action to the owners of the property registered under CF 417.
20.  Between 9 December 2005 and 21 April 2006 at the latest, and between 8 September 2006 and 23 March 2007 at the latest the Court of First Instance decided to stay the proceedings, as the applicant had not conformed to the direction to supplement his action in writing.
21.  The proceedings are still pending.